Shadowstalker16: What exactly do you want me to do? If I see someone else already arguing the proof; I post something to merely express my opinion and not post the same argument as them. I don't like clone posting; and if a question of open-ended nature arises where there is more need than one poster to disprove of, I'll gladly take part.
Also, I believe we have reached an important point in this discussion so as to warrant me asking you what exactly you consider ''hate''.
Fever_Discordia: But I don't understand what
"Social justice = causing pain and suffering to wrong doer. Kill all aspects of his life.
Logical justice = punish the crime, punish the individual who did it. "
even means, or at least what it relates to and what you're basing that on or even why you think that your side has the monopoly on logic and evidence based reasoning when you provide none yourself
I feel your final question is potentially a trap but I see no irony or hypocrisy in showing hatred and intolerance towards the hateful and intolerant
Cleansing fire of righteous justice!
Two can play the haiku game!
We seem
to have reached the level of understanding where both of us don't understand anything of the other's posts. So I'll elaborate.........
What I meant is that when someone asked why SJW sites try character assassination, I replied that SJ was about that because naturally emotions are targeted at a physical entity. I think that's clear. I then compared evidence based justice. Clear.
What are my basis for these assumptions that SJWs are such a group? Their actions that everyone can see are bad. The attack on Briana Wu, the blind hatred towards people without any explained basis, their simple lack of forgiveness, their frenzied self righteousness everything leads me groupthink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink Symptoms of Group Think as per Irving Janis:
Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality
Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
Type II: Closed-mindedness
Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
Type III: Pressures toward uniformity
Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
Type I
Invulnerability illusions: Briana Wu's self appointed Praetorian Guard which said they wanted to crush skulls, many many anorexic journalists and armchair white knight's proclamations of violence.
Unquestioning of morality: can be seen in the ignorance of Wu's self harassment campaign, denial of Anita's ''not a gamer'' video, denial of REAL FEMINISTS who have actual principles and experience and many many others.
Type II
Rationalization: denial of Honey Badgers incident, denial of proof that games cause misogyny, denial in general of everything against their ideolgy
Steryotyping: if you don't know this already; you should start from the timeline and take a few hours or weeks to catch up. EVERYTHING. Saying all gamers are misogynists, neckbeards, saying gamers are fat, introverts, everything. YOU KNOW THIS.
Type III
1.Proof not possible without acceptance
2.Same
3.Disloyalty shaming Wu, or anyone in general. Again, there are only radicals, so loyalty is held in high regard.
4.Their extensive censorship programs like autoblocker and DMCA takedowns.
